Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I got one.
    
    Edd

    QX-7:
    
    2 simultaneous tracks, 16 channels, 8500 events,
    Real-time/Step-time/Loop recording.
    
    Steve_who_loves_his_*vastly*_superior_QX5

	This was the answer to an inquiry I once made when I was considering 
buying a QX-7.  It was written by a well-respected synthesist and a pillar in
the COMMUSIC community 8^>.  Insidently, I ended up buying it, but later sold 
it to have enough money to get something higher on the priority list.

Features       2 Tracks
               ~8000 note capacity *without* velocity
               ~5000 note   "        with       "
               (My impression is that ~8000 notes is alot of memory,
                my Mirage has 333, the JX has 124)
                Quantize to 1/24 note resolution
                Notes down to 1/64 and 1/16 triplets
                Simultaneous play and record
                MIDI IN, OUT and Thru
                Master or slave
                ~30 BPM to ~ 240 BPM
                MIDI echo
                MIDI Monitor mode

Drawbacks       1 song in memory at a time
                (actually you can fit 3, but it leaves you
                 no room to work in)
                No disk drive
                (I use a Radio Shack data casstte recorder with no problems)
                No micro editing.

    
    
   I had a QX7 on loan before buying the Qx5 and have to agree with
 the previous comparison. The Qx7 (sorry Edd) is a very limited sequencer.
 Although Ed gave me quite a bit of help when I had mine at home most
    of these "tips" were workrounds for facilities which really exist
    on the Qx5. You can buy Qx7's in the U.K. for under 100 pounds these
    days. 
    
    The biggest bummer on the 7 is that you cannot predict how long
    the memory will retain your sequence after switch off. I think it's
    arund 2-3 days. On the Qx5 and, I beleive the Qx21, it is permanent.
    
    Or at least until the battery runs out.
    
    
    				Paul

    I also agree thatthe 5 is vastly superior to the 7/21, but gheesh,
    look at the difference in price!
    
    There are many better sequencers on the market than the QX7, but
    how many of them can you score for $100???? It's got more bang
    for the buck than anything else in it's price range.
    
    Edd

    
    OK, give poor Edd a break....
    
    I happen to have a fondness for cheap equipment, because I can't
    afford any *real* equipment    :-)  :-)
    
    Besides, limited equipment gives your music more *character*
    
    8^)  8^)                     
            
    And you can make better excuses up when you play your tapes for
    friends...
    
    
    "That sounds like that there because that's when the sequencer memory
    ran out just before the supply reel fell off the tape deck because
    I forgot to lock it down and when I went to catch it, my beer fell
    over and poured into my mixer....."
    
    etc.
    
    etc.
    
    I bet Kitaro doesn't have any good stories like that  8^)  8^)
    
    
    

    FWIW - Ya has ta make a decision.  Do want big bang for the buck,
    or do you want something you'll be happy with over the long haul?
    For me, the QX5 was a compromise.  I think a lot of the middle-range
    gear fits in this category.  I looked at the other options and chose 
    the QX5 over the QX7/21 because I knew I would be happy with it for a 
    longer period of time, even though it didn't have as much bang.  Now,
    if you pit the QX5 against the MC500, the bang for the buck (in
    my view) clearly swings to the QX5.  I would probably have been
    happiest over the long haul with the MC500, but the QX5 had 
    comparable features (plus macros), no disk (didn't matter to me) and 
    was only half the price, so it had more bang.  So, for me the QX5 
    was the happy compromise between bang for the buck and gobs of features.

    
    Steve_who_is_really_enjoying_COMMUSIC_III

    
    
    I am trying really hard not to sound too "It's no good cos I haven't
    got one here". I did try for some time with the Qx7 and really did
    find that it's limitations were annoying and frustrating and even
    at 100 $ pounds I beleive that a Qx5 at 250 more $ pounds is better
    value. If you really want a cheap sequencer there is the Korg sequencer
    that they're advertising at the moment which is about the size of
    a guitar tuner which is in the same ballpark price range and has
    8 tracks. The other thing about the Qx7 is that I could never get
    to grips iwith all the wierd 2 character messages.
    
    I also incidently don't think that the Qx5 is too much of a compromise
    from the MC500. In terms of usability and funtionality there is
    not much to chose and in fact the Qx even scores a little here and
    there. But the blasted thing doesn't have a disk drive!  If as in
    -1 this is not an issue, then where is the compromise ?
    
   						Paul
    				Who_wants_a_sequencer_with_a_drive 
     
    
                                                           

    re: -.1
    
    There is a compromise between the MC500 and QX5 as far as interfacing
    goes.  The MC500 has that nifty wheel, nice buttons and a multi-color 
    tempo LED you can see from across the room.  But, I basically have the 
    same opinion that the compromise is slight.  Even though the MC500
    has more memory, the macro capability of the QX5 allows me to do
    more since I tend to use 'em a lot.
    
    Steve

    Everything said so far is true but overlooks the fact that the MC500
    can be field upgraded to arbitrary functionality by booting it with
    a new system disk.  True, Roland has so far only issued one update
    with some minor bug fixes, but at least they could fix the bugs
    (none of which I have yet encountered, although I have some
    suspicions).  So whatever the QX-n does that the MC500 doesn't,
    the MC500 could someday.  Maybe Roland will publish the MC500 specs
    so third parties can develop MC500 software.  And maybe there's
    a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
                           
    I have sent Roland a long MC500 wishlist.  Haven't heard anything
    back.
    
    Roland is bringing out a smaller cheaper MC500ish sequencer that
    will give the QX5 a run for its money.  But it uses those cute little
    quickdisks rather than the 3.5"ers.
    
    len.
    

    Good grief.  Another QD product?  I'm moving to a tibetan monestary.
    
    Get a QX1...  It's huge, weighs a million pounds, and has a price
    per pound comparable to that of gold.  (``It doesn't look like much,
    but just wait 'til you drive it!'').
                                          
    Steph

    The ROMs in the QX5 can be replaced and are in sockets (not soldered
    in).  So, an upgrade on the QX5 is feasible, though not as convenient.
    Just have to find a source for new ROMs (piece o' cake, right?).
    
    Steve

    Last night I got an advertising circular that described
    the QX3.  I didn't bring it with me so I don't have the details
    ready at hand (and you've probably all seen the circular by now,
    anyway).  It seems to have more notes than the QX7, but the price
    looked pretty high.  I still intend to use a computer-based sequencer:
    they aren't much more expensive and they provide a much better human
    interface.  Computer-based sequencers aren't very portable, but
    that isn't a problem for me.
        John Sauter

Computer based sequencers using one-piece Macintoshes are certainly more
portable than most keyboard-sized synthesizers.  For around $70 you can
get a neat padded carrying case that will hold a Macintosh, its keyboard
and mouse, with room left over for an external floppy drive.

    I dunno about user interfacing... The QX5 being a dedicated little
    box sitting right by my keyboard is pretty easy to diddle with.
    Most of the time I'm hitting buttons as fast as I can think, and
    the display is pretty streamlined, or more detailed if I want. 
    I imagine that speed-wise I can keep up pretty well with a
    computer-based sequencer for most functions, but I don't have to
    reach very far to diddle.  It's probably a matter of taste.  I *DO*
    like the ruggedness of the little guy!
    
    Steve